|
Was wondering if it handles film editing easily or if it struggles ? |
|
i actually use a mac mini, and programs like after effects cs5 an premiere pro, and actually neverhad any peoblems toedit full hd fottage, it runns pretty smoothly, i only own the 2009 moddel though, so thenewone should be even better, i believe |
|
It is going to be hard and long to render video. Already editing standard video on a mac mini is not recommended, but possible |
|
if you don't plan to use final cut then i would have to recommend a windows pc for the price, you will have much more power to run your chosen program on |
|
Mac Minis are very powerful computers compared to what a lot of people think. I recommend a Mac Mini for people who want to use iMovie mainly, but you can run more powerful applications like CS5 and Final Cut without lag. Of course the rendering/export time will be longer, because it's not the fastest computer out there, but it will get the job done. |
|
I use a 24" iMac, and a 2009 Mac Mini for my projects. Both of them handling video editing well enough. But it's the actual export or transcoding of the video that takes forever. A 15-minute YouTube video could take an hour. A 2-hour show takes 8 hours or so. It really kills my momentum having to wait so long for the final product. |
|
I use a mid 2009 15" Macbook Pro with Final Cut Studio. The specs are slightly inferior to the $1000 mac mini. I use it to edit HDV video and it actually works quite well. I'm sure an iMac performs much better but I can't complain. The videos I make are usually under 5 minutes, but the only problem you would have with longer videos is export time and that's not that big of a deal. If you plan on using a visual effects program such as Motion or After Effects extensively then I recommend a machine with a better graphics card and more RAM. Motion gets very slow on me if I complicate my scene too much. But as far as straight forward video and audio editing is concerned the $1000 Mac Mini should work great (SD or HD). |
